list_environmentsList all environments for a project, including development, staging, and production, to identify available targets for feature flag rollouts.
List the environments of a project (e.g. development, staging, production).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| project | Yes | Project key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, so the agent already knows this is a read-only operation; the description adds project scoping and example environment names. It does not disclose pagination behavior or the return structure, but for a simple read-only list this is a moderate gap rather than a serious one.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and object while using the parenthetical example to clarify the concept. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only list tool with one required parameter, the core purpose and scope are clearly stated and the annotation covers safety. However, the absence of an output schema and any mention of pagination or returned fields leaves the agent uncertain about the result shape, so the description is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, covering only the 'project' parameter, while 'limit' and 'cursor' are undocumented. The description provides no additional meaning for these parameters and only loosely maps 'of a project' to the required project key, leaving the agent to guess at pagination semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('List'), a clear resource ('environments'), and a scoping qualifier ('of a project'), with concrete examples (development, staging, production). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools, which cover projects, flags, and segments, so an agent can identify this tool without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is intended for retrieving environments tied to a project, which gives a reasonable usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites other than the project scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.